Science and Theology, the sequel

02/14/2010 02:22:31 AM · #1126

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't think they would find people to say, "I was there during Passover 33 AD and nothing of the sort happened."?

Not if Paul was referring to spiritual resurrection. Such an event could not be witnessed (or disputed).

Paul was a Pharisee. Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body. If Paul was only referring to a spiritual resurrection you'd think he'd be sure to clarify such a point since a physical resurrection was the defaul position of his sect.

Paul the Apostle's apologetic (defence) of the resurrection of Christ:

If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

It is incumbent upon you to show Paul meant a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one.

02/14/2010 10:34:34 AM · #1127

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I was just replying to the fact you said no miracles were mentioned by Paul. Obviously this is wrong as I think a resurrection (common or not) is recognized as a miracle by both us and them. Do you want to qualify your statement?

Nope, spiritual resurrection is the ONLY thing you'll find in Paul even remotely close to the miracles attributed to Jesus, and it *WAS* a spiritual resurrection he referred to (conveniently unverifiable).

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/14/2010 10:41:40 AM · #1128

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

t is incumbent upon you to show Paul meant a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one.

Fine. 1 Corinthians 15, from 42 on: "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual."

He had little choice but to refer to a spiritual resurrection. The Pharisees believed in the literal resurrection of the body on earth into tangible, immortal form (basically zombies). Since it would have been easy to dispute a literal resurrection (OK, so where is he?), Paul went the spiritual route and limited the form of Jesus to a vision.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/14/2010 10:42:37 AM · #1129

Allow me a bit of room.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The difficult nut to crack with him (for the "myth" crowd) is that he was a self-admitted persecuter of Christians before he became their champion.

If I lived in a world where the competing religions of the time basically looked very much the same, and it was very difficult to pick one flavour out from another -- Mithraism and Christianity were so close it was scary -- I'd add a bit of classic dramatic flair to my story of this religion, if I was such a fervent believer, and sex it up a bit with tales about how I was the big bad guy before I became the big mouthpiece. I think it'd work wonders on the credulous.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The point is that Christians existed very quickly after the claimed death of Jesus.

Cults at the time tended to spread like wildfire. It would only make sense, if you were going to be a fisher of men, to catch them by telling them that stuff just happened, like a couple of years ago! And by the way, Jesus is coming back in your lifetime! (A common belief among the early Christians.) It would work wonders on the credulous.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And although Don points out that 33AD was only the claimed time of his death, if it was all made up, why would they be so explicit with their detailed history?

"A guy named Jesus lived someplace around here and said you're going to live forever" doesn't quite work as well as a detailed mythos, as detailed, as, say, Mithras', or any of the pantheon of gods at the time. I could sit down right now and write a painfully detailed chronology in the events of Zeus' life, even touching on the time before he came to be, his predilections for wine, women, adolescent boys, and song, his quarrels with various heroes, the progeny that sprang from him (human and divine), and all kinds of weird and wonderful stuff. It'd take forever to write and it'd be a very engrossing read. In short, the credulous would really be worked over by a meaty story.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When all four gospels are counted together, fully a quarter deal with the last week of Jesus' life, and it is very explicit in the detail of when and where he was killed.

You mean the four gospels, three of which used the other as their source? Come on.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you are aware, Mark, the text the others are based on, officially ends at 16:8. The rest is a later addition; the is one of those "scholarly facts" not in dispute by real scholarship. So, Mark had nothing to say about Jesus' resurrection or instructions to the Apostles, only that he died, and that those women you speak of were so terrified they didn't tell anybody anything. His book ends on a very frightening and negative tone.

Hardly the stuff of a shining new star on the religious stage at the time. Something had to be done. And was.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

While we're at it, what idiots, when making up the story of the founder of their religion, give him a criminal's death; have his disciples acting like cowards; or have Jesus' empty tomb first found by women (my God, WOMEN!) who were not considered admissable witnesses in court?

Those idiots. The credulous would be impressed by much of this, and women were highly placed in the early Christian church, because they needed the bodies. (No prurient intention is meant here, for the easily vexed.)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I submit that those who believe Jesus was only a myth are making leaps of faith every bit as big as those they are railing against.

Nonsense. I'm presented with an absolutely fantastic tale of bodily raising from the dead and the birth of a hero, all of which sounds suspiciously familiar to many other stories in that part of the world at the time, I refuse to believe it and look for places where the existence of this fellow is called into question, where the historical record is sketchy, and my beliefs about it are as insupportable as yours? That's a good one.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/14/2010 11:51:05 AM · #1130

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You guys keep going back to the gospels as the earliest books written. Think about Paul's epistles. He was writing 20 years earlier than Mark and he a) claims to have met the apostles and other leaders and b) claims Jesus rose from the dead.

You missed my point, even though I thought I was being explicit. Paul isn't writing about a historical Jesus who died in 33AD. He had no such facts to be disputed.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't quite get your talking about people claiming "I was there". There was a whole establishment with a vested interest in Christianity NOT taking off. You don't think they would find people to say, "I was there during Passover 33 AD and nothing of the sort happened."?

There's no evidence that Christianity was strong enough to be a threat until long after everybody who could have seen Jesus was dead. Nobody knows what the "Christianity" of Paul was like, or how strong it was, or even what the term "apostle" meant to Paul. The specific refutable details were not added until it was too late to refute them.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If you believe there was a Jesus, why are you trying to make this argument? I don't get it.

Because I'm interested in explorint what the truth is, not proving something I've already decided is true.

02/14/2010 12:01:24 PM · #1131

Shannon, you neglected the first part of that chapter where Paul emphasized that Jesus appeared to the apostles on more than one occasion after his death.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

These few verses pack a punch. They reveal:

a) Paul believes in the miracle of the resurrection
b) Paul mentioned James, Peter, and "the twelve"
c) Interestingly, Paul mentions "scriptures" which could possibly already refer to gospels written by 52-55 AD. (I'm not saying this is a slam dunk, but I'd say it's as intriguing as anything you are putting forward).

Off to church...

Message edited by author 2010-02-14 12:01:40.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/14/2010 12:08:24 PM · #1132

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Actually, one could argue that the fact that Matthew used Mark's material actually ADDS to the credibility of Mark's gospel. Matthew must have thought Mark's gospel was pretty darn good, otherwise he wouldn't have used it. The fact that Matthew, a disciple of Christ, decided to use Mark's gospel rather than starting from scratch tells us that Matthew must have approved of the gospel.

You might argue it, but you'd be wrong: (1) it is highly unlikely that Matthew hiself wrote the book Matthew, so there's no sense that an apostle "approved" an account; (2) two people independently coming up with the same account would be corroborating evidence, whereas one person copying another's account is of zero objective value.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

My analogies do work. The problem is that you know a lot about 21st century culture, but you probably don't know much about 1st century culture.

Your assumption is wrong - I know quite a lot about it.

It was a highly politically charged civilisation, in which power struggles were played out in the religious, parliamentary and military arenas. There was little or no concept of objectivity in history or reporting. Mythology was prevalent, people believed in and respected the supernatural power of curses, augurs, oracles and soothsayers.

People didn't care whether a religious story could be authenticated - they cared about the political message that it carried. Christianity was and is deeply popularist - empowering for the plebs in a way that other religions did not. This is why it caught on.

02/14/2010 12:17:27 PM · #1133

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Shannon, you neglected the first part of that chapter where Paul emphasized that Jesus appeared to the apostles on more than one occasion after his death.

You asked me to show that Paul was referring to a spiritual resurrection, and I did. Whether or not Jesus was claimed to appear as a vision before others is irrelevant to the question of a bodily resurrection in Pharisee terms.

Note also that the account of 500 witnesses was reduced to 120 in Acts, and reduced again to only the apostles in the Gospels... except for the prototypical work of Mark which originally didn't mention resurrection at all.

Message edited by author 2010-02-14 12:24:56.

De Sousa

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

02/14/2010 03:09:51 PM · #1134

1. If you believe in everything that is written, maybe you shouldnâ��t read at all.

2. If you think the humanâ��s mind (at the Christâ��s time) was different from the contemporaneous humanâ��s mind, probably you donâ��t know anything about evolution of the species and the scale of time needed to find significant changes.

3. The history is full of examples where the â��POWERâ�� spent huge efforts to control what should be written and what shouldnâ��t. Everyone knows that this happens all the time in our days, so you can imagine how it was at ancient times where propaganda was the most effective way to control people. The army/police costs a lot of money, propaganda itâ��s much cheaper and can be everywhere, at any time, even inside of peopleâ��s mind.

So, Iâ��ll try to answer these questions:
- How many times, in the name of the religion, they burned, killed and oppressed people? (All the time)
- How many times, in the name of the people, they destroyed the gospels? (Never)
- Whoâ��s the religion really serving? You or these with the power to control you and take your money and your life from you? (You answer)

Take this for grant: - There are some formulas, very effective, to do things in this life.

Maybe you are trying to find the perfect formula to take a stunning photograph or maybe you already know and you have the power to amaze people.

Religion is a perfect formula to control people. Those with a huge power know it very well and they use it all the time for their benefits. Imagine something that can be inserted inside your mind at the point that you are available to fight for it. You have become something that isnâ��t you anymore, but a simple instrument to serve a cause.

Just for finish, I must say that I believe in God! An immense God with the size of the entire universe, that doesnâ��t fit inside any fiction created by the religions or any book written by men; these ignorant creatures! (I included). A God so powerful that exists from the beginning of times, and will continue His existence after the extinction of the Men and even the end of the world. He is so powerful that He doesnâ��t need me to serve Him, not even He ask me for money, but instead He serves me with the miracle of life. I really believe in God with all my heart, and I always express to Him my immense gratitude for His generosity.

PS: And for these that donâ��t believe in the Christâ��s rising again from the dead, I can assure you that Iâ��ve already shot him with my camera, more than once, and Iâ��ll do it again very soon. The only problem is that this Guy is a very busy guy.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

02/14/2010 03:38:27 PM · #1135

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

By the way... if you don't think Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephs are reliable historical accounts, and you don't believe that The Bible is historically accurate, do you believe anything that historians claimed took place in antiquity? Those are about the only sources we have. If you don't think any of them are credible then we might as well completely disregard everything that we know about history prior to 100 CE.

Originally posted by Louis:

Um... hm. Let me see if I understand you correctly. I have said there are problems of legitimacy in the texts of three of the most important sources for extra-canonical information about the historical Jesus. You counter by saying in that case, we can know nothing about history prior to 100CE.

I'm not saying that we can't know anything prior to 100 CE. However, if you think some of the (as you yourself acknowledged) most important sources of information from the first century are unreliable, then certainly the less important sources will also be reliable. And if first the first century histories are unreliable, then certainly all previous and more primitive histories must also be unreliable. Even non-Christian historians believe that The Bible is the most important historical document that exists that provides information regarding ancient life prior to 100 CE. If The Bible AND pagan histories are unreliable, then all you're left with is archaeological evidence.

Originally posted by Louis:

BZZZZT... sorry, wrong. The scholarship suggests that professional scribes were not utilized before the fourth century CE (Ehrman MJ p. 71ff.), and that those acting in their "spare time" mostly did the copying in the early centuries of the church. Whether or not any were pig farmers is, I grant you, up for debate.

Just to let you know the majority of New Testament scholars do not agree with Ehrman. His theories are certainly plausible, but there are problems with his scholarship. I'm not sure what other historians think about his claim that professional scribes were not utilized before the 4th century, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that's not true. Scribes were a highly respected segment of society in Jewish culture, and they were carefully copying the Old Testament Scriptures for hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. Needless to say, many of the early Christians (especially in Palastine) were Jewish converts. The early Christians adopted many traditions and practices from Judaism including, but not limited to, their extreme respect for Scripture. Ehrman's work is valid, but there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that Scripture was copied very carefully throughout the centuries which contradicts his theories. Ehrman could be right, but he could just as easily be very wrong.

Originally posted by Matthew:

The authorship of Matthew was unchallenged until about the 18th century. While some scholars doubt that Matthew wrote the gospel, Matthew is still the most plausible author. No alternative author has been suggested because there is no evidence to suggest that anyone other than Matthew wrote the gospel bearing his name. Some historians doubt whether Matthew could have been the author, but he is still the best option since there are not other options.

Check out this chart. It is obvious that even though Luke and Matthew borrowed material from Mark, each of the three gospels are still unique and there are important distinctions. This is why all three gospels are still highly valuable. The fact that there is crossover does not take away from their value, and as I mentioned above, many scholars believe this actually adds to their value.

Originally posted by Matthew:

People didn't care whether a religious story could be authenticated - they cared about the political message that it carried. Christianity was and is deeply popularist - empowering for the plebs in a way that other religions did not. This is why it caught on.

That's a poor generalization you have going there... I would say that the upper echelons of Roman society were interested in the political appeal of major religious movements, but not the average citizen. The majority of Jews did not like the Romans, or their politics (The Hellenistic Jews and the Sadducees are small exceptions). The Pharisees, Zealots, and the vast majority of Jewish people were not interested in politics and many of them avoided it completely. The Qum'ran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, was an entire community of Jews that moved into a series of caves out in the wilderness where the Romans left them alone. The Romans knew that the Jews didn't like them much. This is why the Romans allowed the Sanhedrin to have some authority, and why Herod the Great rebuilt the Temple (he wanted to gain favor with the Jews).

Christianity did not "catch on" until the later part of the third century, and only after the Romans had failed on numerous occasions to stamp out Christianity in the empire. The Romans oppressed and persecuted Christians for roughly two hundred years, and more than one emperor tried to completely destroy the religion. It is now widely believed that Nero started the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 so that he could blame it on the Christians and use it as an excuse to eliminate them. Christianity became popular with the emperors when they finally realized they wouldn't be able to stop it. Originally the emperors despised Christians because they refused to call the emperor their lord.

02/14/2010 03:52:10 PM · #1136

A couple comments on the I Corinthians passage and then a reassessment of the conversation:

1) You seemed to assert that Paul believes only in a spiritual resurrection because it was conveniently unverifiable. You also assert that Paul never mentions a miracle. I Corinthians 15 refutes both points. First, Paul says that Jesus appeared before five hundred people "most of whom are still living". If Paul doesn't think Jesus' resurrection is verifiable, why does he challenge people to go check for themselves? He's telling them there are people who will verify his claim. Second, he continually uses the word "body" (soma) which seems an odd choice if he is merely talking about a spiritual resurrection. This is definitely an odd choice when you conside he is a Pharisee (as mentioned) and they believe in a physical resurrection. If Paul was suddenly giving a Hellenized version of things, I would think he would be more clear about it. Either way, the point is it was miraculous! People do not rise from the dead and appear to people. I know it. You know it. And importantly, the people of the time knew it did not happen under normal circumstances. If the resurrection was a dime a dozen, why would Paul consider Christ such an important, central figure to religion? The crucifixion and resurrection is EVERYTHING to Paul. It was such an important event that nothing else matters. ("we preach Christ crucified")

2) Why do you and Louis contend that Mark has no resurrection? Secular scholars say Mark ends at 16:8. There is obviously still a resurrection (6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' ").

But let us remind ourselves of the conversation at hand. Was there a historical Jesus? Spiritual resurrection. Physical resurrection. For the conversation it doesn't matter. The point is there was a person Paul claims to have existed on Earth who was raised from the dead. Louis contends that Jesus never ever was. A figment of people's creative imagination. I counter that this he needs to contend with the historical facts about Paul and how they make very little sense if Jesus was merely created out of whole cloth.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

02/14/2010 04:29:48 PM · #1137

Originally posted by De Sousa:

PS: And for these that donâ��t believe in the Christâ��s rising again from the dead, I can assure you that Iâ��ve already shot him with my camera, more than once, and Iâ��ll do it again very soon. The only problem is that this Guy is a very busy guy.

:-)

02/14/2010 04:45:06 PM · #1138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I Corinthians 15 refutes both points. First, Paul says that Jesus appeared before five hundred people "most of whom are still living". If Paul doesn't think Jesus' resurrection is verifiable, why does he challenge people to go check for themselves? He's telling them there are people who will verify his claim.

Paul was preaching in Rome, and claimed 500 witnesses in another continent decades earlier without saying exactly who or where. Verification would be basically impossible. Moreover, Paul's claim of 500 witnesses is not mentioned in Acts or the gospels, nor did any of the 500 apparently write about itâ�� a refutation of Paul.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You also assert that Paul never mentions a miracle.

A spiritual resurrection is about the least miraculous claim you can make. It's akin to a Native American claiming someone's spirit now inhabits a certain rock or bear (not very compelling). Got anything else? Virgin birth, healing the sick, feeding the masses, walking on water? Any parables, direct quotes of his teachings? Nope. Paul isn't aware of any of these things... because they hadn't been invented yet.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Second, he continually uses the word "body" (soma) which seems an odd choice if he is merely talking about a spiritual resurrection.

I already quoted where Paul explains the difference between an physical BODY and a spiritual BODY. There is no question what he's talking about. The Pharisees believed in an immortal resurrection, and Paul explicitly states that physical bodies cannot be immortal.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But let us remind ourselves of the conversation at hand. Was there a historical Jesus?

Of course there were, just like there were historical Davids and Matthews. It was a common name, and the Jewish historian Josephus mentions several. However, none fit the description of the Christian Jesus until it was added to copies roughly 200 years after Josephus died. We don't actually know if THAT Jesus existed. If so, to paraphrase Twain, the stories of his life have been greatly exaggerated.

02/14/2010 04:53:59 PM · #1139

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

if you think some of the (as you yourself acknowledged) most important sources of information from the first century are unreliable, then certainly the less important sources will also be reliable. And if first the first century histories are unreliable, then certainly all previous and more primitive histories must also be unreliable.

This doesn't make sense. It's is an issue of credibility, not the date. The National Enquirer is not a reliable source of information, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether a "less important" publication is reliable.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

While some scholars doubt that Matthew wrote the gospel, Matthew is still the most plausible author.

"Although the author of Matthew wrote according to his own plans and aims and from his own point of view, the great amount of overlap in sentence structure and word choice indicates that Matthew copied from other Gospel writers, or they copied from each other, or they all copied from another common source... The most popular view in modern scholarship is the two-source hypothesis, which speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q (for the German Quelle, meaning "source")."

Since Matthew was supposedly an eyewitness to the events, it's extremely unlikely that he would need to copy the work of others.

Message edited by author 2010-02-14 16:54:13.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/14/2010 05:26:51 PM · #1140

I'm surprised anyone is even arguing that actual apostles of Jesus wrote the gospels. I thought that was put to bed a long time ago. Names were thrown onto the gospels later, with the possible exception of John, the last of the gospels, probably not written until the 80s or 90s.

02/14/2010 05:48:02 PM · #1141

Thanks for your reply Shannon. I do always find it a very odd experience to argue the finer points of Christianity with someone who doesn't even believe in God. The whole point was to show Louis that even in the hardcore Rant section he seems to stand alone in claiming there was no historical Jesus. I still disagree with your assertion Paul only believes in a spiritual resurrection, but it could be a very long conversation and why quibble over pebbles when the boulder of "God doesn't exist" blocks all that out. I could refer you to the Oxford Bible Commentary as an excellent scholarly commentary. My copy was a wonderful gift from Louis and it certainly doesn't approach the Bible from the view that it was inspired by God. The passage you refer to is spoken about at some length by the OBC and they certainly do not make the point that Paul believes in a spiritual resurrection. In fact, it is nearly the opposite. I can quote a few pertinent lines:

"...Yet the discussion of the body in 6:12-20 gave the indication that Paul considered the Corinthians' understanding of resurrection to lie at the root of other problems in their church (see esp. 6:12-14)...In fact, the main focus of the chapter (at least from v. 35 onwards) is the notion of a resurrection body, and it is most likely that the Corinthians believed in the existence of some post-mortem state, but one free from the restrictions of the body...For Paul, their doubt about the sense of value of a 'resurrection body' suggests that they are beginning to question an essential element of their faith, the resurrection of Christ; it also indicates a lack of trust in God's creative power to bring life out of death in whatever form he chooses. Thus he insists on the apocalyptic notion of a final battle against the powers of death (vv. 20-8) and defends the idea of a resurrection body, though dispelling crude notions of physical identity between the present and the future body (vv. 35-57)."

Message edited by author 2010-02-14 17:48:56.

02/14/2010 06:47:40 PM · #1142

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

the main focus of the chapter (at least from v. 35 onwards) is the notion of a resurrection body, and it is most likely that the Corinthians believed in the existence of some post-mortem state, but one free from the restrictions of the body.

= spiritual resurrection. That seems to be exactly what Paul advocates: "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body... is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

02/14/2010 06:58:52 PM · #1143

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the main focus of the chapter (at least from v. 35 onwards) is the notion of a resurrection body, and it is most likely that the Corinthians believed in the existence of some post-mortem state, but one free from the restrictions of the body.

= spiritual resurrection. That seems to be exactly what Paul advocates: "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body... is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

I think you miss the point of the commentary. In the passage you quote they are talking about the belief of the Corinthians, but just previously it had said that Paul felt their misunderstanding was leading to problems within their church (ie. Paul disagrees with them).

"Paul considered the Corinthians' understanding of resurrection to lie at the root of other problems in their church..."

02/14/2010 07:40:05 PM · #1144

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In the passage you quote they are talking about the belief of the Corinthians, but just previously it had said that Paul felt their misunderstanding was leading to problems within their church (ie. Paul disagrees with them).

And you miss Paul himself (quoted twice) declaring the truth of the very thing you say he disagrees with.

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/14/2010 07:58:08 PM · #1145

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the passage you quote they are talking about the belief of the Corinthians, but just previously it had said that Paul felt their misunderstanding was leading to problems within their church (ie. Paul disagrees with them).

And you miss Paul himself (quoted twice) declaring the truth of the very thing you say he disagrees with.

Oi vey. If your statement was true, wouldn't the commentary point that out? You have the incredible ability to see exactly what you want to see in anything you read, even if it is opposite of the true meaning of the passage.

I suppose you can give me your credentials explaining why I should listen to you over a) my own reading or b) the Oxford Commentary. It's possible, I suppose, you are correct and the OBC and I are wrong. But you'll have to let me know why I should listen to you. Why do you have such in depth knowledge of Biblical interpretation?

Here's another possible interpretation. It's possible Paul meant "ideal" when he said "spiritual" which would be a very Hellenistic idea. Paul understands resurrection to be very physical, but he knows his audience and that they are likely to have a Hellenistic viewpoint. He then draws a distinction between the natural body and the spiritual body in the same way the greeks would distinguish between the physical copy of an object and the ideal object. You may be interpreting spiritual as "ghostly" where the greeks may interpret spiritual as "incorruptible". I will fully disclose this is speculation and I don't have anything to back this up (other than my understanding of greek philosophy along with similar themes in the book of Hebrews). So you can reject it if you want. But I have no authoritative reason to take your interpretation of I Cor 15. All my Christian commentaries deny what you say and even my scholarly commentary does too. That doesn't leave you with many allies.

Message edited by author 2010-02-14 20:04:42.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

02/14/2010 08:50:17 PM · #1146

Originally posted by scalvert:

Oh, I see. So all the pagan history writers that lived during the first century are conveniently unreliable, but all other histories before Christ are reliable and truthfully recount the events of their time. Yet, somehow, I'm the one that is criticized for twisting the evidence to jive with my arguments...

Originally posted by scalvert:

Since Matthew was supposedly an eyewitness to the events, it's extremely unlikely that he would need to copy the work of others.

Yes, it is unlikely that Matthew would have needed to use Mark's gospel. Two hundred years ago scholars assumed that this meant Matthew didn't write the gospel. Rather than asking old questions and accepting old answers we should ask a new question (which many scholars have done). Instead we assume that Matthew was the author and ask, Why would Matthew have used Mark's gospel? Historians answer that Mark was written with Peter's authority, and since Peter was a more prominent disciple, it would have been disrespectful for Matthew to challenge Peter's credibility by writing an account that could have been dramatically different. This explanation makes sense considering that plagarism was not an existing concept at the time. In that mindset, Matthew probably chose to acknowledge Peter's authority by adding his own name (as another disciple and eyewitness) to Mark's gospel, rather than starting from scratch. Remember, Mark was writing to gentiles. Matthew was not trying to write a competing account, he was writing a gospel for the Jews who probably hadn't seen Mark's gospel. Since it was a new audience, Matthew probably just used Mark to save time and effort.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/14/2010 09:05:28 PM · #1147

Originally posted by De Sousa:

Really looking forward to seeing the photos.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/14/2010 09:06:31 PM · #1148

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Since it was a new audience, Matthew probably just used Mark to save time and effort.

... how handy is that?

Ray

02/14/2010 10:43:59 PM · #1149

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's possible Paul meant "ideal" when he said "spiritual" which would be a very Hellenistic idea. Paul understands resurrection to be very physical, but he knows his audience and that they are likely to have a Hellenistic viewpoint. He then draws a distinction between the natural body and the spiritual body in the same way the greeks would distinguish between the physical copy of an object and the ideal object.

Here's a crazy thought... maybe, just maybe, it's possible that Paul meant what he actually wrote. If he meant "ideal" he could've written ideal. Paul does NOT understand "resurrection to be very physical." In fact, he flatly declares that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," so a resurrected body couldn't be physical, period. No interpretation necessary.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You have the incredible ability to see exactly what you want to see in anything you read, even if it is opposite of the true meaning of the passage.

Actually, you seem to be doing this even with the OBC commentary! Paul was trying to reinforce the idea of the resurrection in general to the Corinthians because some were starting to doubt the concept (1 Cor 15:12), and he was utterly explicit in drawing a distinction between the physical body of the living and the resurrection body (1 Cor 15:42-54). The latter would have to be a non-physical form (ghost or spirit) This is totally in agreement with the OBC passage you quoted ("dispelling crude notions of physical identity between the present and the future body").